[techtalk] Desktop OS?

[Michelle Murrain]

At 9:53 PM -0400 6/4/01, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
>Point taken.  However, those Librettos are older technology.  Many of the
>major manufacturers (IBM, Sony, HP, Compaq, Dell, and Toshiba at least) now
>certify at least some of their desktop and/or laptop models as 100% Linux
>compatible.  In some cases you have to add manufacturer-supplied drivers, but
>that applies to Winodws as well.

I agree, and it has been a huge leap since even a year ago.

>I disagree, and I'll get to why as I address your other points.  The only
>thing that is easier about Windows is that people are used to it already, and
>don't have to learn a different way of doing things than what they know. 
>That, more than anything else, will hold Linux back if the big corporations
>don't make a switch.

I have to disagree on this one, being a pretty constant user of all 
three major OSes. Linux is by far the hardest of the 3 to setup, 
configure and deal with on a day to day basis, I think. It's not that 
each day I spend more time on Linux - I'd probably say on average I 
spend more time each day dealing with MacOS or Windows glitches. But 
when I have to deal with a linux glitch or setup of some sort, it's 
often (but not always) a much more major time suck, and more 
challenging, than dealing with the same issues in either windows or 
mac.

Case in point: Do you think that pointing at an icon, clicking the 
"Next" button a few times, perhaps reading a little instructions is 
harder (or anywhere near as hard) than the following scenario that I 
have been through lots:

tar -xzf some_new_software.tar.gz
less INSTALL/README
./configure --with who knows how many options
oops, forgot to set some environment variables
./configure --with options
make
make install

Or:
rpm -i new_software.rpm
oops, dependency problem - go to rpmfind.com
rpm -i dependent_software.rpm
rpm -i the_other_dependency.rpm
oops missing package - go back to rpmfind.com
rpm -i final_package.rpm
rpm -i new_software.rpm

(Now, don't ya'll say "use Debian!" That's another thread! And I do 
know that Mandrake and Red Hat are working hard and making this 
easier as well.)

Star Office, which is a huge program but has a nice GUI install was 
FAR easier to install than most little packages via rpm if you run 
into an (almost inevitable eventually) dependecy problem.

Now, of course, at least in the tarball example above, compiling 
something from source gives you incredible flexibility that I'd 
personally not want to give up. But most people aren't me, or you.

>See my comments above.  The main difference between buying a Windows-ready
>laptop and a Linux-ready laptop is that 1) Windows is preinstalled.  This is
>*huge*, and 2) You actually have to do a little reseach and choose a
>Linux-ready one.  Any laptop (except a Mac) will work with Windows.

Agreed.

>To me, the big issue that holds Linux back is product placement, not ease of
>use.  Finally, though, a crack in the Microsoft armor!  Guess what I saw at
>CompUSA?  A tiny version of the Sony Vaio, preconfigured as dual boot: 
>Windows ME and Red Hat Linux 7.0.  Very cool!  If preconfigured Linux systems
>get into the mainstream stores then it really *does* have a chance to catch
>on.  The question is:  is that a good thing?  How will the mainstreaming of
>Linux change it?

Cool. That's a nice change. I thin to some extent, Linux has already 
been changed by the mainstreaming of it on the server side.

>  > KOffice is impressive? From what perspective? My experience of
>>  KOffice is that it sucks rocks. It doesn't have that many features,
>>  some features are pretty strangely implemented, it crashes at the
>>  drop of the hat (I've tried this with a couple of different distros,
>>  so it wasn't the installation), and it can't deal with MS files,
>>  which for most people is essential, since they share files with folks
>>  who use MS office.
>
>I should have said "impressive for such a young product".  Which version did
>you try?  That describes the version that came with KDE 1.9x and 2.0.  The
>version with 2.1.1 does have MS Office filters, though they need work,
>doesn't crash, and has a feature list that is rapidly improving.

I agree that KOffice has huge *potential*. It's just unrealized at 
this point. I've used the earlier versions, mostly. However, the most 
recent version I tried didn't do so well with an (admittedly complex) 
Word document.

>I'm going to tackle this from two angles:  First, 90% of computer users can't
>install *any* operating system.  They buy their system with the OS
>preinstalled.  This is why getting Linux-based systems into stores is so
>critical.  IMHO, the semi-savvy non-geeks who actually try to install an OS
>are a small fraction of the market, and therefore not vital.

Yeah, OK, I agree here.

>OTOH, to answer your question more directly, I honestly believe the answer is
>"yes".  Try something if you have the time.  Install either current version
>of Windows (2000 or ME) and get it to work properly with everything in your
>system.  Next wipe the system and do it again, this time with either
>Linux-Mandrake 8.0 or Caldera OpenLinux eDesktop 3.1 (yes, the beta is fine
>for this test).  Tell me which is easier?  If Mandrake or Caldera correctly
>find the hardware (and the new versions are really good at detecting hardware
>correctly) Linux is actually easier.  No, that isn't true of all distros.
>The two I chose are the best for newbies, IMHO.

OK, I'll be upfront and say I have yet to try installing 
Linux-Mandrake 8.0, or the new Caldera OpenLinux. Some distros, like 
Linux-Mandrake can, in fact be easy to install, but that doesn't help 
if your hardware isn't compatible, which happens far more often in 
the Linux world than the windows one. I agree wholeheartedly that 
pre-installed systems are going to make a huge difference.

BTW, after installing and trying progeny debian, I'm almost ready to 
say that it's the best newbie distro. Combining as seamless and easy 
an install as I've ever had with apt-get is a pretty compelling 
package. The one thing they need to add that would make it a slam 
dunk is some (ala mandrake or red-hat) GUI configuration tools, and 
maybe a GUI apt front end.

>Chances are, if they have to install their own OS, *most* of them won't
>bother, and a high percentage of those that do won't be happy at all.  Try a
>week as a "Mandrake Expert" and you'll know just how lost the newbies are. 
>When you try to help them with something that seems like second nature, i.e.:
>"open a terminal window and type in this command", you are likely to get no
>response, or worse, something like "What is a terminal window?"

Yah - agreed.

>To me, this is why preloads and corporate acceptance are what are going to
>determine whether or not Linux makes it on the desktop.  It has nothing to do
>with technical superiority since most users won't understand the issues
>involved.  It has nothing to do with how easy the installation is, since the
>vast majority of users can't handle even the simplest installation.  It has
>nothing to do with ease of use, since both KDE and Gnome have already made it
>user friendly.  It has to be prechewed, put in friendly packaging, and sold
>by kids at superstores who don't know anything at all and are paid minimum
>wage.

And, and, and, the apps have to be there and compelling. I think what 
will make Linux on the desktop work, actually, in the (predictable) 
absence of MS Office ported to it, is if Adobe, Intuit and Macromedia 
among others porting their products to Linux. I think that if *all* 
of the apps are substitutes for the ones most folks use everyday, 
it's not going to happen. But if you can get quicken, photoshop, 
dreamweaver, filemaker, etc. on Linux, many, many people will decide 
they can do with an alternative office suite. As much as I love the 
GIMP, and as close as it gets (pretty damn) to being as good as 
Photoshop, it *isn't*  Photoshop, because it doesn't have the name 
recognition. It's not going to draw long time photoshop users to 
Linux. Only Photoshop itself will.

>The really sad thing is that if Linux does make it as a desktop OS, most of
>us on the list will hate the result.  Most users won't use Linux the way we
>do, and most distros will adjust to the new user base.  I dare say the kind
>of young hackers who built Linux in the first place will be into other
>things, as in maybe BSD or Hurd or something that isn't even on the horizon
>yet.

You got it. If it happens, in a couple of years, lots of us will be 
on hurdchix :-)

>Anyway, it's all opinion, and it's worth exactly what you paid for it :)  Oh,
>and I think we agree on most all the facts.  We just draw different
>conclusions from them.

Yup, I think that's true.

Michelle
--